this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
20 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

217 readers
19 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Faced with increasing pressure to respond to widespread concerns about the cost of living and questions about his leadership, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a series of new measures Thursday meant to deal with rising housing and grocery prices.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Labtec6@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing with teeth unfortunately. Putting taxes on the corporations will just raise prices. Not very helpful. Getting rid of the GST on new rental units will mean bigger profits for the builders. Nothing here helps the people.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Taxing corporations does not just raise prices for consumers!! This is a hyper conservative worldview, and very convenient to corporations that don’t want their taxes raised. It is also contradicted by literally any first year economics textbook, so I don’t understand why it keeps getting repeated.

Tax changes to encourage rental construction have been advocated by urban economists for years. This particular measure was proposed by the NDP. An affordable rental market actually puts downward pressure on the overall real estate market.

That said, I agree the Liberals aren’t doing enough.

[–] pbjamm 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Liberals aren’t doing enough

Is this a situation similar to the US where the "progressive" party is not doing enough to help and the regressive party wont help at all?

I take the "something is better than nothing" view on this.

[–] sik0fewl@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Liberals are socially progressive, but fiscally still quite conservative (but not as conservative as Conservatives).

Edit: Actually, I would say that Liberals are status quo conservative and Conservatives are regressive conservatives.

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I general, I’d agree with that. On housing specifically, I wouldn’t.

Until recently, I would say Liberals were actively hurting housing affordability. Their signature housing proposal up to now is a tax cut for rich people who have maxed out their TFSA, which is the first time home buyers tax free savings account. That raises demand without addressing supply or disincentivizing investors. It sounds like a proposal written by the real estate investment community, and frankly, it probably was.

This recent proposal is full of good but minor stuff that should have been done a decade ago and will probably take another decade to have an effect. They’ve wasted a lot of time and I still doubt they’re taking it seriously.

Edit: I want to clarify that I think Conservatives would do an even worse job. Their voter base has even more home owners than the Liberals do and I seriously doubt they have any intention of shrinking real estate GDP growth, which is what is required.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

All of these problems are symptoms of crony capitalism. He isn't going to fix anything by treating the symptoms. Grocery prices are insane because Loblaws owns everything. Housing prices are insane because landlords own city councils all over the country and refuse to build more housing (and also because of an immigration policy which the Liberals themselves say is intended to prevent wages from rising)

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The government needed to legislate price caps for key groceries and give the municipalities more control over their zoning and construction. This neoliberal policy bullshit just serves to take money from public coffers and put it in the pockets of the rich.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you place price caps on a product that are below the point where it is profitable for companies to sell it then they will simply stop stocking them in in their shelves. There is historical precedent, too.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Profitability has clearly not been a problem for smaller grocers. Why is it only a problem for the big chains?

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The government needed to legislate price caps for key groceries

By definition, a shortage occurs when an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising.

Explain to us how creating a shortage of food, of all things, is a good idea. From my point of view as someone who likes to eat, a shortage of food is the scariest proposition.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Costs are driven up by grocery chain skimming. This is most obvious by stepping into any large independent grocer. In Vancouver, these include Foodymart in Richmond and the Crystal Mall produce stands in Burnaby.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Is it strongly worded?

[–] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Happy to see the Housing Generator fund pay out with some YIMBYism, but imho it doesn't go far enough. I hate and fear Poilievre, but he's right when it comes to the carrot-and-stick approach to municipal governments blocking housing:

They do not deserve the carrot. They deserve the stick. Poilievre, being a gigantic asshole, is much more willing to use the stick.

load more comments (1 replies)